AAR...my candidate to walk the plank!

The AAR conference brings together a very diverse group of people. There are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans and Atheists. There are sociologist, theologians, anthropologists, and (surprise!) lawyers. Oh, and I even met an evolutionary psychologist. Some are regular practitioners of their faith; some are simply fascinated by the social expressions of religion. It is illuminating to interact with such a diverse group around various topics; it also requires a sensitivity to the faith positions of others. As an evangelical Christian I must be prepared to defend my faith, but I am also obligated to live at peace with those around me. I need to treat others with respect even when we disagree. I don't always succeed but I try.

To teach sociology of religion in a religious institution has its advantages I think. You can assume a particular theological position and proceed from there. A university context must be much more challenging. How do you navigate the diversity of opinion and avoid the religious minefields? I like how Chris Helland my doc supervisor handles it. He explains very early in the class the sociological perspective that he adopts: he must "bracket" his own beliefs and choose not to ask the crucial question "is this from God?" As a sociologist he is confined to the natural world. This does not mean he believes that religion is an entirely human phenomenon but that some things are outside his research focus. He must take all religious experiences at face value though he does not believe all religions are universally valid based on their outcomes (e.g. Jonestown or the Branch Davidians). I think he would say he is an observer of religion not its judge.

I attended one paper where the researcher was studying Chick Comics and Tracts. If you grew up in a conservative evangelical church you probably will remember the gospel tract "This was your Life". I appreciate the evangelistic message they tried to make and the zeal behind the attempts. Sometimes however, the message they preached, especially when addressing other groups such as Roman Catholics, was fraught with unproven innuendo and speculation. It was more than the simple gospel message. The truths they communicated were sometimes lost in the bluntness of their presentation. The sociologist who presented the paper obviously did not share Chick's position. His presentation was littered with sarcastic asides and not so subtle mockery. This was more than critique of the content and approach of Chick; this was a rejection of the faith position of this group. He was no longer a sociologist, but assumed the role of arbiter of the truth claims they made. I would hope that Chris' first year undergraduate students would know better than this professor.

So in a not so nonjudgmental fashion I nominate this presenter to "walk the plank!"